Academic Dishonesty and demographic factors - The Journal of ...

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 2 ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN

THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG PAKISTAN STUDENTS Muhammad Shakeel Aslam1 and Mian Sajid Nazir2

Key Words: dishonest behavior, personality traits, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, Pakistan

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Academic dishonesty has been a matter of great concern in higher education for last few decades. The dishonest behavior of students at graduate and undergraduate level has become a severe issue for education and business sector, especially when the students exercise same dishonest practices at their jobs. The number of private and public sector universities is increasing; therefore, the effects of academic dishonest behavior on potential professionals need to be carefully investigated and appropriate policies must be formulated by academicians in order to resolve this issue. The present research addresses this matter by investigating into the relationship of student’s personality traits such as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness with the academic dishonest behaviors of students. A well-structured questionnaire was used to collect the data from 932 respondents studying at graduate and undergraduate levels in different Pakistani universities. The study found students’ personality traits to have a significant impact on attitudes towards academic dishonesty. The results provide a strong implication for academicians to develop the moralities and ethics in students so that institutions may provide ethically cultivated professionals to the business community.

Academic Dishonesty has been a matter of great concern in higher education during the last few decades. The issue of dishonest behavior of students at graduate and undergraduate level has become very severe, particularly when students continue to exercise the same practices at the workplace. The worst scandals of world top companies of World Com and E-toyes, Enron & Adelphia have forced the researchers to focus their attention on the role of college and universities in ethical training of tomorrow’s business leaders. The cheating students have strong tendency to practice same unethical and dishonest behaviors at the workplace which they had exhibited during their education (Grimes, 2004; Rakovski and Levy, 2007; Hardling et al; 2004; Lawson, 2004). The number of private and public sector educational institutions is increasing day by day; therefore, the impact of academic dishonest behavior on the life of potential professionals needs to be carefully analyzed and appropriate policies must be formulated in order to minimize these unethical practices in the business and education sectors. The present study sheds some light on this issue by investigating the relationship of personality traits with the frequency of students’ involvement in dishonest behaviors, severity of and penalty for these behaviors. Researchers in the area of social sciences agree upon the five dimensions of personality e.g. Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neurotisicm and Openness (John and Srivastava, 1999; Levine and Jackson, 2002). These dimensions are collectively called as

1

Lecturer at Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. 2 Assistant Professor at Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. [email protected]

50

The Impact of Personality Traits on Academic dishonesty among Pakistani students

Big Five personality Srivastava, 1999).

traits

(John

and

reviews some significant studies, third part develops the methodology followed by results and discussion in the next. Final section concludes the study by suggesting some implications for educators and future avenues for researchers.

Extraversion is revealed to be strongly related to the positive emotionality (Barrick and Mount, 1991; John and Srivsastava, 1999). Furthermore, it is found to have connection with training expertise and positive work relationship (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Furnham, et al, 2005). Individual high on Agreeableness found to have high ability to get along with the groups and for the creation of good relationships (Organ and Lingl, 1995). In addition, Trevino and Nelson (2004) revealed that individuals high on Agreeableness always pursue the group norms if they found them in the favor of organization. It is noted that the level of Agreeableness does not have significant impact on the level of students’ behaviors towards academic dishonesty (Christine and James, 2008). Charactertics of Conscientiousness include thinking well before taking action, proper planning and organizing, abiding by norms, rules and regulations, greater sense of responsibility, prioritizing, high training aptitude and delaying pleasure (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Colbert et al, (2004) found Conscientiousness to have positive relationship with higher productivity and less deviance. Neuroticism, fourth dimensions of personality has been reported to have close association with organizational deviance (Colbert, et al, 2004) and with nonconstructive emotionality as well (Barrick and Mount, 1991; John and Srivastava, 1999). The Openness trait has positive relationship with work and independence in job affairs (Furnham et al, 2005) as well as related to the intellectual level, cognitive capability and high training aptitude (Barrick and Mount, 1991).

LITERATURE REVIEW Much has been written and researched about the students’ ethics in higher education (Rakovski & Levy, 2007). In this regard, some earlier work of William and Bowers in 1960s has provided a strong base, which is further explored by Donald McCabe in 1990s. However, these concepts came from the developed world and researches were also carried out in these countries. In general, research concluded that dishonesty in education is rampant which needs to be carefully analyzed in other countries as well along with its relation with the demographic factors of the students. Literature finds mixed vies regarding the increased frequency of cheating in academics (McCabe and Bowers, 1994; McCabe and Drinn, 1999) despite some contrary findings of Brown and Emmett, 2001). The longitudinal analysis of the Bower’s research indicates that the frequency of students’ involvement in academic dishonesty and cheating is rising. In earlier, Bower (1964) analyzed 5000 students from 99 various college campuses and found that at least half of them were engaged in some form of academic dishonesty. Later on, McCabe and Bowers (1994) conducted the survey students from 9 more campuses to the previous study and concluded that 52% of the sample students reported copying exam sheet or test from another student where in 1964 this ratio was just 26%. McCabe and Trevino (2002) also observed a fourfold increase in the number of students using cheating material in exam (i.e. from 6% to 27%). Academic dishonesty among students has been explored in the western context and this area remained unattended in Pakistan. To address this gap and to provide the new avenue to the researchers in the area of educational research, Nazir and Aslam (2009) conducted

The research is expected to contribute a better understanding of the ethical decisions of students helping the academicians and business professionals to look into and formulate some policies to refrain from this behavior. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows; the next section

51

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 2 ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN first study on academic dishonesty with studies reported that male students are respect to the Pakistani culture and more frequently engaged in dishonest acts concluded considerable results which can be than females (Bower, 1964; McCabe and helpful to decrease the level of cheating Trevino, 1997; Whitley et al, 1999). among the students. Moreover, this is also confined by a literature review paper of Crown and Spiller (1998) who reported more involvement of As per the findings of a student self male students in cheating than females. So, reported survey of Ogilby (1995), the ratios we can also expect a significant relation of cheaters on exam has increased from 23% between the gender difference of students to 84% during a period of 1940-1982 while and their involvement into academic students cheat more frequently at rural dishonest acts. The study of Nazir and colleges (Robinson et al., 2004) as well as Aslam (2009) confirms the findings of small colleges (Dawkins, 2004). Use of previous studies that the involvement of technology has further enhanced the male students in cheating behaviors is problem of academic dishonesty at greater than that of female students. university and college levels. Computers and internet have made it very convenient and easier to obtain the information and use Different studies have addressed the it as your own with or without mentioning students’ dishonest behaviors on the basis of the source. This has been taken into age as well. It is reported that younger consideration by Scanlon and Neumann students engaged more oftenly in cheating (2002) by conducting a study of than their older counterparts (Haines et al., undergraduate from nine colleges and 1986; Graham et al., 1994; Diekhoff et al., universities from USA; the study reported 1996). Another point of view came into the findings that a substantial number of consideration i.e. in younger age, they have students use the internet form copy and their own code of ethics to behave in society paste text into their assignments and papers but as they grow up, they show moralities in without mentioning the source. The use of their behaviors and become more technology for cheating has increased much philosophical (Auerbach and Welsh, 1994; that student even use to break into the Barger et al., 1998). Younger and unmarried computer files of professors and steal exam students are more tolerant to cheating papers and result sheets (Fishbein, 1993). behavior than older and married students (Whitley et al., 1998). This notion is also supported by Coombe and and Newman Research has found mixed evidence on the (1997) that the individuals at younger age, gender effect on moral values of students. are found to be less ethical than the older Although, some earlier studies reported ones. According to the findings of Nazir and inconclusive findings on gender differences Aslam (2009), no prominent difference has and academic dishonesty (Thoma, 1986); been in the level of cheating behavior on the however, recent studies noted a link is basis of age difference. prevailing (Shaub, 1989; Sweeney, 1995, Cohen et al, 1998). As per Malone (2006), attitude of male and female students differs Regarding the subject majors and program on some dishonest acts but for most of the levels of students, researchers are confused. issues of dishonesty, they behave in same Many studies provided evidence that, at the way. Cohen et al. (1998) developed a college and university level, the business Multidimensional ethics Scores (MES) to students are among the most dishonest ones evaluate the ethical evaluation and intention (Caruana et al., 2000; Clement, 2001; Smyth aspects of honest behaviors, and found that and Davis, 2004). Business students males and females had significantly provided the highest cheating rate 87% different set of judgments on their while comparing it to the other nonperception of ethical behavior. Some other business majors (Caruana et al., 2000).

52


Harris (1989) reported that, most business students have low ethical values than their peer students in other majors. Recently, Christine and James (2008) analyzed the academic behaviors of students and showed that subject major significantly influences the students’ choice for academic dishonesty. Contrary to these studies, Beltramini et al., (1984) provided a very weak precedent that despite the gender effect business students are ethically sounds that the students opting for non-business subjects. The study conducted by Nazir and Aslam (2009) provided similar findings as of Beltramini et al. (1984) that business students are less tolerant for academic dishonesty and they involve less frequently in cheating behaviors as compare to the nonbusiness.

Several studies can be found in literature of academic integrity on the degree of dishonesty and suggested penalties for these acts. Rakovski and Levy (2007) summarized these in their paper concluding that examrelated and plagiarism dishonest acts are to be considered more serious dishonest acts; whereas, collaborating on homework and not contributing to group projects are less serious dishonest acts. As per the general expectations, the behaviors students mostly involved in are considered less serious by them (Kidwell et al., 2003; Nuss, 1984). Whitley (1998) and Whitley and Kost (1999) determined that the student consider and most likely act to help someone cheat (which is a passive and less serious act) than to cheat by themselves on the exams (which is reported most sever and active dishonest act). Nazir and Aslam (2010) concluded that the students take academic behaviors as more severe in which they involve more frequently and as less severe in which they involve less frequently.

Prevalence of academic integrity and dishonesty has also been studied across the different levels of the students. Zastrow (1970) has concluded that the frequency of cheating in students at the graduate level was at least as extensive as for the undergraduate students. Rakovski and Levy (2007) noted that undergraduate students are involved more oftenly and extensively in dishonest acts than the graduate students; however, Christine & James (2008) reported that there is no significant difference between the attitudes of students towards academic dishonesty at the graduate and undergraduate level. Furthermore, academic performance of students has also been an important predictor which reflects the negative relationship. Smith et al., (2002) summarized the results of various studies and concluded that students with greater academic performance are engaged in cheating less often than the students with lower performance. In the light of previous studies, similar evidence has been found for the level of cheating behaviors on the basis of academic program that undergraduate students are more tolerant for academic dishonesty and their involvement in cheating behaviors is greater than that of graduate students.

In addition, researchers also addressed the issue of penalties for these academic dishonest behaviors. According the Nuss’ (1984) survey of faculty members regarding penalties for academic dishonesty, 39% respondents would report the matter to appropriate authorities; 34% would grant a lower grade and 26% would give a warning to student if he/she has found cheating. Moreover, these suggestions of penalties are dependent on the severity of the dishonest acts as well. Whitley and Kost (1999) use a case study method by presenting the students’ different cheating scenarios and reported that assisting and helping others to cheat is viewed by students as less serious dishonest act than cheat by itself. Furthermore, they suggested that cheater should be given a failing grade (50%) or failing grade on assignment (25%). Students also suggested that most common punishment for the cheater should be a private reprimand and writing a comprehensive paper on academic honesty. In the study of Nazir and Aslam (2010), it is revealed that the students recommend high

53

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 2 ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN penalties which are being considered as The study gathered the data from the more severe and low punishment for less respondents on a well-structured and selfsevere cheating behaviors. administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. First part was focusing on the personality Five personality traits are expected to have traits of the students. The five personality direct impact on the level of students’ traits such as Extraversion, Agreeableness, cheating behaviors. As per the available Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and literature, single study conducted by Openness have been measured by using the Christine and James (2008) has been found 10 items scale developed by Rammstedt and that examined the level of students’ John (2007) on five point Likert scale i.e. 1 academic dishonesty on the basis of big five for disagree strongly and 5 for agree personality traits. As per the findings of strongly. Second part consists of most Christine and James (2008), Extraversion, commonly researched thirteen unethical Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and academic acts the students may involve in. Neuroticism found to have no impact on the The frequency, severity and penalty of level of cheating tendency among students academic dishonest behaviors have been while Openness found to be moderately measured by second part of the impact the level of students’ academic questionnaire taken from the literature dishonesty. Although personality can not (Cohen et al., 1998; Davis and Welton, 1991; only be the single predictors to assess the Rakovski and Levy, 2007). The responses ethical behaviors, some personality for frequency of students’ involvement in dimensions e.g. Conscientiousness can cheating behaviors were arranged on a five foresee unethical behaviors (Colbert, et al, point Likert Scale in always to never (i.e. 1 2004; Litzky, et al, 2006; Robinson and stands for always and 5 for never involved); Greenberg, 1998). Individual personality for severity of these behaviors in most and nature mainly considered for examining severe to least sever (1 for most severe, 2 for the individual attitude and behavior (Fang, more severe, 3 for moderate severe, 4 for 2006). Individual having positive less sever and 5 for least severe); and for emotionality analyze more information and penalty of these behaviors on 1 to 5 (i.e. 1 for alternatives and which leads them to the no penalty, 2 for reduce grade by 1 level, 3 quality decision making process (Christine for reduce grade by more than 1 level, 4 F and James, 2008). grade in course or assignment/project and 5 for F grade in overall course). The data was From the above discussion, we can infer that collected on the questionnaire discussed the studies to analyze the impact of above from the graduate and undergraduate students’ personality traits on their attitudes students studying at the various universities toward academic dishonesty, severity and of Pakistan. The questionnaires were penalties are from developed countries. This distributed in the classes and students took issue, yet, has not been explored in the approximately 15 minutes to complete each context of higher education in developing questionnaire. countries like Pakistan. To fill this gap a structured questionnaire has been administered to assess the five personality traits of students, studying at public and private sector universities of Pakistan, their level of frequency, severity and penalties of academic dishonesty.

For the sake of generalization and fruitfulness of the study, students were selected from the senior most classes of the professional fields only like the business, engineering, public administration and commerce. There were 1000 questionnaire distributed among the respondents out of which 932 were found complete and useful questionnaire returned having 93.2%

METHODOLOGY

54


effective response rate. The internal consistency of the Scale and data collected was tested using Cronbach’s alpha which produced a co-efficient of 0.68. The research has proved that the value of this alpha is greater than 0.5 and is acceptable in social sciences (Nunally, 1978). Descriptive statistics and different measurements of association have been used to investigate the relationship of students’ demographics and their academic dishonest behaviors using SPSS 16.

Neuroticism 66% students found to be on higher side while 34% students are on Low in Neuroticism.

INSERT TABLE-3 HERE Table 3 reports the results of correlations analysis has been used to investigate the relationship of personality traits with frequency of students’ frequency of involvement in academic dishonesty. Mean and standard deviation columns show that overall students have been found high in all personality traits. Correlation found mix result for the relationship of all personality traits with frequency of academic dishonesty. Only Extraversion dimension has positive and significant relationship with the frequency of academic dishonesty; negative and insignificant relationship has been found for the relationship of Agreeableness and Neuroticism with frequency of cheating behavior and negative and highly significant (p values are less than 0.01) relationship has been seen for the relationship of Conscientiousness and Openness with the frequency of dishonest behaviors. As far as the relationship of personality traits with severity of academic dishonesty, viewed by students, has been concerned, Table shows that negative and insignificant (0.715) relationship has been revealed for the relationship of Extraversion and severity of dishonesty while positive and insignificant (p values are greater than 0.05). Suggested level of penalty for the dishonest acts has been noted insignificant (p values are greater than 0.05) relationship with all personality types. It is noted that penalty for dishonest behaviors have positive relationship with Extraversion, Agreeableness & Conscientiousness with penalty and negatively related to Neuroticism and Openness. Overall the result of this study validate the findings of Christine and James, (2008)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION INSERT TABLE-1 HERE The cross tabulation were shown in Table 1 in CGPA, Academic Program, Age Group and Major were compared with Gender of the respondents. The sample was collected from different universities which are representative of population. Out of 932 respondents 622 (67%) are male and 310 (33%) are female. In terms of academic performance, a vast majority of male students secured a CGPA ranging from 2.50 to 3.50 while out of 310 female respondents 240 (77%) were found to have secured CGPA of 3.00 to 4.00 which reflects that female students are more hard working and earn good grade than their male counterparts. Number of respondents studying in undergraduate classes is more than that of graduate classes. A heavy majority of respondents were found in age group of 21 to 25 while no student was found above thirty years of age. There is slight variation in sampling across business and non-business majors with former having small majority both in male and female respondents.

INSERT TABLE-2 HERE Table 2 shows the cross tabulations for personality traits and demographics. Approximately 90% students falling in different groups classified on the basis of Gender, CGPA, Academic Program, Age Group and Academic Major are found to be high on Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness. In case of

INSERT TABLE-4 HERE Table 4 shows the results of 2-Independent sample has been used for the comparison between mean score of respondents found

55

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 2 ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN to be high and low on personality traits. 2frequently. As the level of Extraversion in independent test has been used here as the one’s personality gets high, his/her cheating samples are found to be non-normal. In case level will be expected to be increased. of frequency of students’ involvement on Students having high Conscientiousness the basis high and low on personality traits, and Openness take academic dishonesty no significant differences have been found more seriously as compare to the student for Agreeableness, Neuroticism and found to be high on Extraversion and Openness as the p values are less than 0.01 Neuroticism. Agreeableness is found to be while significant differences have been silent in this regard. Students having high found between the mean score of high and on Neuroticism and Openness suggest low low on Extraversion and Conscientiousness. level penalty for academic dishonesty while When we measure the differences between students found to be high on Extraversion, means of responses found to be high and Conscientiousness and Agreeableness low on personality traits towards the recommend high level penalty for these viewed severity of and personality for behaviors. Overall students recommend low academic dishonesty, behaviors of both high penalties for academic dishonest behaviors. and low level groups of all personality traits Findings of the study conducted by are found to be equal as the p values for the Christine and James (1999) found no comparisons between all groups are greater significant relationship between personality than 0.05. Overall it has been concluded that traits and cheating behaviors of the students students behave in the same way towards but this study reported some significant either they have high on a particular connections between personality traits and personality traits or low. frequency of cheating among students. In addition, no significant differences have been found between the attitudes of CONCLUSION students towards academic dishonesty on the basis of high and low level of The issue of academic dishonesty has personality traits. remained a matter of great concern during past few decades. The situation and scandals of popular companies make it more sensitive due to the students’ practices of dishonesty at the workplace. The present research has tried to investigate some of the aspects of this issue and explored the impact of students’ demographic factors on their inventions and perception of academic dishonesty. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the senior students of different business and nonbusiness programs at higher level of study. The students were supposed to respond whether they engaged in any dishonest act always or never, whether they take academic dishonesty more seriously or not and what level of penalty they recommend for dishonest behaviors.

The results also put emphasis on the need to have a careful insight by the academicians and policy makers on the ethical and moral values of students at the undergraduate level at a university. This also puts stress on the requirement to impact the course of Ethics in the undergraduate curriculum, especially for non-business students. Finally, the students also left some un-attended areas of this field to be addressed in future. These may include looking this issue in the other regions of Pakistan by increasing the sample and taking into consideration more universities. Different programs, subject major and other academic characteristics can be helpful to further explore the demographical impact on the students’ attitude towards academic dishonesty. Different personality traits of students and personality types (A/B) along with locus of control are also some issues of academic

The results of different correlation analysis have concluded that students having high Conscientiousness and Openness found to be involved in cheating behaviors less

56


dishonesty researches.

to

be

discussed

in

Proceeding of 15th Annual Meeting of American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences (ASBBS) held on 23-24 February, 2008 at Las Vegas, USA, 15, 604-616. Clement, M. J. (2001). Academic Dishonesty: To be or not to be? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12, 253-270. Cohen J. G., Laurie & David, J. S. (1998). The Effect of Gender and Academic Discipline Diversity on the Ethical Evaluations, Ethical Intentions and Ethical Orientation of Potential Public Accounting Recruits. Accounting Horizons, 12, 250-270. Colbert A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J.K., Witt, L. A. & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive Effects of Personality and Perceptions of the Work Situation on Workplace Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609. Coombe, K. & Newman, L. (1997). Ethics in early Childhood Field Experiences. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 1-9. Crown, D. F. & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the Literature on Collegiate Cheating: A Review of the Empirical Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 683-700. Davis, J. R. & Welton, R. E. (1991). Professional Ethics: Business Students’ Perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 451-463. Diekhoff, D. M., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Williams, L. E., Francis, B. & Haines, V. J. (1996). College Cheating: Ten Years Later. Research in Higher Education, 37, 487-502. Furnham, A. (2003). Personality, Individual Differences and Incentive Schemes. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 325-334. Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Tsaousis, I. Pappas, K. & Garrod, D. (2005). A CrossCultural Investigation into the Relationships between Personality Traits and Work Values. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 5-32. Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K. & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at Small

future

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank Sh. Muhammad Adnan for his appreciable support in this research. We also like to pay our gratitude to Ms. Farhan Ahmad for his help in data analysis as well as Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed, Ms. Iffat Khalid, Mr. Mussarat Nawaz, Mrs. Samia Tariq, Ms. Irum Nawaz, Ms. Irum Ashraf, Mr. Farhan Ahmad for their help in data collection. We would also thank Mr. Samar Kamal Fazli for reviewing the paper.

References Aurebach, J. A. & Welsh, J. S. (1994). Aging and Competing: Rebuilding the U.S. Workforce. National Council on the Aging-National Planning Association Symposium, Washington D.C., ISBN: 0890681287. Barger, R. N., Kubitschek, W. N. & Barger, J. C. (1998). Do Philosophical Tendencies Correlate with Personality Types? Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13-17. Barrick M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Beltramini, R. F., Peterson, R. A. & Kozmetsky, G. (1984). Concerns of College Students regarding Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 195200. Bower, W. J. (1964). Students Dishonesty and its Control in College. Working Paper Series, Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia, NY. Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B. & Ewing, M. T. (2000). The Effect of Anomie on Academic Dishonesty among University Students. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14, 23-29. Christine, Z. J. & James, C. A. (2008). Personality Traits and Academic Attributes as Determinants of Academic Dishonesty in Accounting and NonAccounting College Majors. In the

57

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 2 ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN Colleges: An Examination of Student Academic Dishonest Behaviors of and Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors. Students. In the proceedings of 2nd COMSATS Applied Business Research Journal of College Student Development, 16, Conference held at COMSATS Institute of 777-790. Information Technology, Lahore Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in Pakistan on November 14, 2009. Academics and Business: A CrossNazir, M. S. & Aslam, M. S. (2010). Cultural Evaluation of Student Academic Dishonesty and Perceptions Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, of Pakistani Students. International 273-290. Journal of Education Management, 24, Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E & forthcoming. Clark, R. E. (1986). College Cheating: Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. Immaturity, Lack of Commitment, and NY: McGraw-Hill Publishers. the Neutralizing Attitude. Research in Organ, D. W. & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, Higher Education, 25, 257-266. Satisfaction, and Organizational Hardling, T. S., Carpenter, D. D., Finellie, C. Citizenship Behavior. The Journal of J. & Passow, H. J. (2004). Does Academic Social Psychology, 135, 339-350. Dishonesty relate to Unethical Behavior Rakovski, C. C. & Elliott, S. L. (2007). in Professional Practice? An Explanatory Academic Dishonesty: Perception of Study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, Business Students. College Student 311-326. Journal, 41, 466-478. Harris, J. R. (1989). Ethical Values and Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. (2007). Decision Processes of Male and Female Measuring personality in one minute of Business Students. Journal of Education less: A 10-item short version of the Big for Business, 64, 234-238. Five Inventory in English and German. John, O. P. & Srivsatava, S. (1999). The Giv Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203Five Trait Taxonomy: History, 213. Measurement and Theoretical Robinson, S. L. & Greenburg, J. (1998). Perspectives. In Pervin L and OP Johns Employees Behaving Badly: (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and Dimensions, Determinants, and Research (pp. 102-138), New York: Dilemmas in the Study of Workplace Guilford. Deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is Classroom Cheating Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational Related to Business Students’ Prosperity behavior (pp. 1-30). Chichester: John to Cheat in the Real World? Journal of Wiley & Sons. Business Ethics, 49, 189-199. Shaub, M. (1994). An Analysis of the Litzky, B. E., Eddleston, K. A. & Kidder, D. Association of Traditional Demographic L. (2006). The Good, the Bad, and the Variables with the Moral Reasoning of Misguided: How Managers Auditing Students and Auditors. Journal Inadvertently Encourage Deviant of Accounting Education, 12, 1-26. Behaviors. Academy of Management Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., Rosenberg, D. L. & Perspectives, 20, 91-103. Haight, G. T. (2002). A Structural Malone, F. L. (2006). The Ethical Attitude of Modeling Investigation of the Influence Accounting Students. Journal of American of Demographic and Attitudinal Factors Academy of Business, 8, 142-148. and In-Class Deterrents on Cheating McCabe, D. L. & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Behaviors among Accounting Majors. Individual and Contextual Influences on Journal of Accounting Education, 20, 45-65. Academic Dishonesty: A Multi-Campus Smyth, M. L. & Davis, J. R. (2004). Investigation. Research in Higher Perception of Dishonesty among TwoEducation, 38, 379-396. Years College Students: Academic Nazir, M. S. & Aslam, M. S. (2009). On the versus Business Situation. Journal of Relationship of Demography and Business Ethics, 51, 63-73.

58


Sweeney, J. (1995). The Moral Expertise of Auditors: An Explanatory Analysis. Research on Accounting Ethics, 1, 213-234. Thoma, S. (1986). Estimating Gender Differences in the Comprehension and Preference of Moral Issues. Development Review, 6, 165-180. Trevino, L. K. & Nelson, K. A. (2004). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to do it Right (3rd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors Associated with Cheating among College Students: A Review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235-274. Whitley, B. E., Nelson, A. B. & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender Differences in Cheating Attitudes and Classroom Cheating Behavior: A Meta Analysis. Sex Roles, 41, 657-680. Zastrow, C. H. (1970). Cheating among College Graduate Students. The Journal of Educational Research, 64, 157-160.

1. Table 1: Demographic Statistics CGPA Below 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5- 4.0 Total Program Graduate Undergraduate Total Age Group 16-20 21-25 26-30 Above 30 Total Major Business Non-Business Total

Panel A: Gender and CGPA Male Female N %age N %age 9 1 2 1 92 15 8 3 206 33 60 19 206 33 114 37 109 18 126 41 622 100 310 100 Panel B: Gender and Program Male Female N %age N %age 107 17 87 28 515 83 223 72 622 100 310 100 Panel C: Gender and Age Group Male Female N %age N %age 81 13 62 20 532 85 245 79 8 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 622 100 310 100 Panel D: Gender and Major Male Female N %age N %age 320 51 205 66 302 49 105 34 622 100 310 100

Total %age 11 1 100 11 266 29 320 34 235 25 932 100

N

N 194 738 932

Total %age 21 79 100

N 147 798 13 0 932

Total %age 15 83 2 0 100

N 525 407 932

Total %age 56 44 100

Table 2: Personality Traits and Demographics Gender Male Female

Extraversion High Low 556 74 267 35

Panel A: Personality Traits and Gender Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism High Low High Low High Low 581 49 582 48 422 208 281 21 278 24 195 107

59

Openness High Low 576 54 279 23

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 2 ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN Total

823

109

862 70 860 72 617 315 Panel B: Personality Traits and CGPA Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism CGPA High Low High Low High Low High Low Below 2.0 11 0 9 2 9 2 6 2 2.0 - 2.5 90 11 91 10 87 14 69 32 2.5 - 3.0 237 34 244 27 246 25 188 83 3.0 - 3.5 288 34 303 19 307 15 207 115 3.5- 4.0 197 30 215 12 211 16 147 80 Total 823 109 862 70 860 72 617 315 Panel C: Personality Traits and Academic Program Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Program High Low High Low High Low High Low Graduate 161 24 175 10 170 15 126 59 Undergraduate 662 85 687 60 690 57 491 256 Total 823 109 862 70 860 72 617 315 Panel D: Personality Traits and Age Group Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Age Group High Low High Low High Low High Low 16-20 125 17 131 11 131 11 91 51 21-25 84 91 718 57 715 60 516 259 26-30 13 1 13 1 13 1 10 4 Above 30 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Total 823 109 862 70 860 72 617 315 Panel E: Personality Traits and Major Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Major High Low High Low High Low High Low Business 461 55 496 20 483 33 329 187 Non-Business 362 54 366 50 377 39 288 128 Total 823 109 862 70 860 72 617 315

855

77

Openness High Low 11 0 95 6 245 26 294 28 210 17 855 77 Openness High Low 173 12 682 65 855 77 Openness High Low 127 15 714 61 13 1 1 0 855 77 Openness High Low 471 45 384 32 855 77

Table 3: Correlation for all Personality Traits, Frequency, Severity and Penalty Sr. No

Item

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

Extraversion

3.35 0.90

-

2

Agreeableness

3.50 0.82

-.045

-

3

Conscientiousnes 3.40 0.80 s

.140**

.141**

-

4

Neuroticism

2.72 0.92 -.244**

-.024

-.124**

-

5

Openness

3.15 0.70

.013

-.030

.062

.052

-

6

Frequency

2.41 0.67

.071*

-.053

-.169**

-.027

-.087**

-

7

Severity

3.23 0.78

-.012

.000

.001

-.028

.028

-.018

8

Penalty

2.30 0.80

.008

.007

.055

-.047

-.056

-.142** -.169**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 60

8

-


Table 4: Measurement of equality of means Scores of Respondents high and Low on Personality Traits Frequency Personality Traits

Severity

Penalty

High

Low

ZPvalue Value

High

Low

ZPvalue Value

High

Low

ZPvalue Value

Extraversion

2.43

2.25

-2.600

0.009

3.23

3.22

-0.37

0.708

2.31

2.19

-1.07

0.285

Agreeableness

2.40

2.56

-0.983

0.326

3.23

3.22

-0.16

0.870

2.29

2.39

-0.45

0.650

Conscientiousness

2.39

2.61

-2.790

0.003

3.22

3.30

-0.08

0.936

2.30

2.26

-0.45

0.651

Neuroticism

2.38

2.46

-0.161

0.872

3.22

3.24

-0.84

0.399

2.29

2.30

-0.02

0.983

Openness

2.40

2.50

-1.793

0.073

3.23

3.22

-0.62

0.533

2.28

2.44

-1.74

0.081

61